Science journalism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Scientific journalist)
Jump to: navigation, search
Emma Reh (1896-1982) was a science journalist for Science Service in the 1920s and 30s. Here she is reporting on an archaeological site in Oaxaca for Science News.

Science journalism conveys reporting about science to the public. The field typically involves interactions between scientists, journalists and the public, and is still evolving.

Contents

[edit] Aim of science journalism

Science values detail, precision, the impersonal, the technical, the lasting, facts, numbers and being right. Journalism values brevity, approximation, the personal, the colloquial, the immediate, stories, words and being right now. There are going to be tensions.
—Quentin Cooper, of BBC Radio 4’s Material World, [1]

The first task of a science journalist is to render the very detailed, specific, and often jargon-laden information produced by scientists into a form that the average media consumer can understand and appreciate, while still communicating the information accurately.

Science journalists often do not have training in the scientific disciplines that they cover. Some have earned a degree in a scientific field before becoming journalists, or exhibited talent in writing about science subjects. However, good preparation for interviews and even deceptively simple questions such as "What does this mean to the people on the street?" can often give material that is useful for publication for the intended audience.

[edit] Status of science journalism

With budget cuts at major newspapers and other media, there are fewer working science journalists than before. Blog-based science reporting is filling in to some degree, but has problems of its own. [2]

[edit] Criticism

Science journalists regularly come under criticism for falsely reporting scientific stories. Very often, such as with climate change, this leaves the public with the impression that disagreement within the scientific community is much greater than it actually is.[3] Science is based on experimental evidence, testing and not dogma, and disputation is a normal activity.[4]

[edit] See also

[edit] References

  1. ^ Science and the media – an uncomfortable fit By Sallie Robbins
  2. ^ "Unpopular Science", by Chris Mooney and Sheril Kirshenbaum, The Nation, Aug. 17, 2009
  3. ^ http://tigger.uic.edu/~pdoran/012009_Doran_final.pdf
  4. ^ http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/series/badscience

[edit] External links

Personal tools
Namespaces
Variants
Actions
Navigation
Interaction
Toolbox
Print/export
Languages